Jump to content

User talk:BilCat/archive24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Turboprop page - definition and broader definition

Well, u undoed my suggested changes and wanted to "discuss"?

What exactly?

"In our airport you see numerous jets in storage area and some turboprops as well". "Jet" and "turboprop" in common language (the one common people use when they search) refers to airplanes equipped with Jet Engines and Turboprop engines respectively. I provided a link to Miriam-Webster dictionary and they list the definition of turboprop as an aircraft with turbine-propeller engine.

This should be reflected in the article.

p.s. your "undo" also removed my carefully placed links to "engine intake", "reduction gearbox" and some other. Why are other parts of turbine propeller engine are linked and those first two are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M8sterMind (talk • contribs)

(talk page watcher)M8sterMind Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The Turboprop article is not meant to list every single definition of the word "turboprop". If you want to contribute to a dictionary, check out Wiktionary. - ZLEA T\C 14:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
ZLEA, it is not the issue (NAD) that you mention. Unlike dictionary, any and every encyclopedia (which, of course, Wiki is not by any definition, still) exists to present meaning of terms and you shall find tens of thousands of human words used in various contexts meaning different things (disambiguation). Take the word "word" for instance ;-) Word (disambiguation)
Thewolfchild, done. Posted this issue in Turboprop page "talk" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M8sterMind (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you - wolf 16:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Rewind TV affiliates

Hi, there are some stations listed as TBD on the List of Rewind TV affiliates page with out a source, with me adding KSNW In there. So, maybe you can take a look at this on the page. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 00:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

General Dynamics X-62 VISTA edit

Hi BilCat, I am responding on your talk page as requested. Thanks for being diligent in moderating the X-62 page, and I appreciate your desire to keep things well referenced and accurate. The wiki page, however does not accurately reflect the reference. Please notice paragraph 4 of the article where it states "The VISTA is currently in the midst of an upgrade program which will fully replace the VISTA Simulation System (VSS). The upgrade program will also add a new system called the System for Autonomous Control of Simulation (SACS) to support autonomy testing for the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Skyborg program." I will admit the word "replace" is misleading in the first sentence. The VSS is being fully redesigned and replaced with a new VSS. There is a new system called SACS that is also being added to the aircraft that will interface with the VSS. The SACS will not replace the VSS as stated on the wikipedia article. If it helps I am Dr. Chris Cotting the person that was interviewed for the referenced article. I am also the person responsible for VISTA and am leading its upgrade effort. While we are upgrading the aircraft we are not grating lots of public interviews, articles, etc, and as such referencing publicly released information is difficult, however, I would like to correct what I perceive to be major errors in information about VISTA in the public. I also changed the line about Calspan in the article, because the aircraft really is a partnership between the USAF, Calspan, and Lockheed Martin. The USAF (myself along with a couple of others) designed the overall system, Calspan designs/ implements / maintains the VSS and does the aircraft maintenance, and Lockheed designs / implements / maintains the SACS, and does the engineering work for the basic aircraft. Lockheed is also writing a part of the software for the VSS called the MFA or Model Following Algorithm.

Thanks again for your diligence, and please let me know if there is more I can provide to keep the article accurate.

- ccotting

Nashville

I knew that was wrong. The same editor has made many other moves recently. I was just looking for a noticeboard or TP to ask someone look into the other moves. Any suggestions? MB 23:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I've been looking at his other moves too, but it may take a while to sort out. I've warned them for the Nashville move, and we'll see what happens. If the moves are too complicated for a Page Mover to undo, I'll ask an admin to fix them. If he keeps up the bad moves, then ANI is probably the best place.to post a notice. BilCat (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave this to you. I'm not that familiar with naming conventions for places in Venezuela, but what they did to Nashville certainly makes me suspicious there may be other errors. I saw one article was moved three or four times. MB 23:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi BilCat! I just wanted to say thanks for all you do on aircraft and military aircraft articles. I hope you have a very Merry Christmas, and may the coming year bring you great joy and good fortune. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and a Merry Christmas to you and yours. (And yes, I do celebrate Christmas.) BilCat (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

CAC Ceres and Huh? tag

I suspect that the ICI in question would be Imperial Chemical Industries or one of its many subsidiaries - it would make sense that a company that manufactured fertilisers, pesticides etc would be interested in means of application. Of course without a source it would be difficult to confirm this.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't have a clue what it might be. BilCat (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Cheers

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello BilCat, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,
FOX 52 talk! 01:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you also. BilCat (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

New Year in advance

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello BilCat, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022.
Happy editing,
ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am ICBP. I saw that you had thanked me for an edit made almost a month back. I wonder how you found that old edit? And thanks for supporting that edit of mine. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I was following up on some edits by Special:Contributions/83.47.127.58. on of which was to the Juan Trippe article. The edit you reverted was right after that IP's edit. I've thanked editors for edits made over 12 years ago, so a month is relatively recent for me. I'm pretty free with my Thanks, but of course only registered editors can get them. Yet one more thing IP-only users miss out on! BilCat (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Roanoke Colony

Hello Bilcat, I have received a message about editing to a Roanoke Colony article that I had performed, since it has been removed I can no longer look back on it and see what I did that was incorrect. If I could receive some feedback as to what was incorrect about the article specifically, that would be very much appreciated. NickKaster (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@NickKaster: Hi Nick. Per the notices posted on your talk page, the text you added was copyrighted, specifically from this website. Wikipedia cannot legally host copyrighted information. As a one-time issue, you're not "in trouble", and may continue to edit, but please realize that persistent copyright violations may result in users being blocked. Please read the notice on your talk page for further information, and for helpful links to information on how to avoid violating copyrights in the future. BilCat (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 1
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Announcements
  • After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
  • On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
  • Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
  • The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
  • The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
  • The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
  • The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.
Members

New Members

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Good Article assessment

Deletion

Requested moves

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.
Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 142
FL 15
A 56
GA 505
B 4,573
C 11,878
Start 15,082
Stub 18,754
List 2,539
Category 11,638
Disambig 653
File 2,713
Portal 629
Project 89
Redirect 1,518
Template 2,489
NA 66
Assessed 73,339
Unassessed 1
Total 73,340
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 251,875 Ω = 4.91
New/Ongoing Discussions

On The Main Page

Did you know...

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

USS Holland (SS-1)

I really do appreciate your attention to this page. However, I would like to make a request. Please remove the hand drawn image of the Holland. It is an amateurish rendering that looks as if a child drew it. It is representative of the Holland in only the most general sense. If you can't use the image that I uploaded, that is fine. There are numerous images of the Holland on the internet that can be used, but please remove the hand drawn image. It makes Wikipedia look bad because the image is laughable and cartoonish. It is very nearly an insult to the Navy and the men who manned our first submarine. Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveJ576 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

DaveJ576 Let me get this straight. The sketch, which is "a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties" is an insult to the very navy which made it? I don't quite get your logic. If the Navy thought the image was an insult, the Navy never would have published it. - ZLEA T\C 20:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Dave, the best thing to do in this case is to post a message on the article's talk page about removing the image. I wouldn't mention it being an "insult to the Navy", however, as that's just hyperbole, but try to keep it as neutral as possible. BilCat (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for the previous remark. Upon reflection it was worded in an inappropriate manner. The simplistic nature of the drawing caught me by surprise and it did not seem to be in keeping with Wikipedia's drive to attain and uphold accuracy and legitimacy. I would urge you to find a suitable replacement. So that my position may be understood, I would like to state that I am a retired USN Chief Petty Officer and I am Qualified in Submarines. I am also a published historian. My only goal is to ensure that Wikipedia is as accurate as it can be. I am still new to the editing process with a lot of learning yet to do on how to properly gather and post pictures. Thank you for your understanding and indulgence in this matter. It is appreciated. DaveJ576 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
No apologies necessary, Chief. However, it is apparently the work of a US sailor, and as such is probably historically noteworthy. As to using images found on the internet, that is always problematic, as many images are copyrighted or otherwise have licenses that are legally incompatible with Wikipedia's usage policies. However, if some can be found that are verifiable as a work of the US government, then those are useable, as all such works are in the Public Domain. As an aside, thank you for your service, and I do mean that. (About 30 years ago, I thanked a Vietnam Veteran for his service in Vietnam, and he didn't know quite how to take it. But I meant it, then and now. My dad is a Vietnam-era veteran, and my granddad served in WWII. Thankfully they didn't need my dad's specialty in Vietnam, as he was a technician involved with tactical nuclear weapons!) BilCat (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Move

Please move this page to INS Khanderi (S22). Happy editing. I ame Shears (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't, as there's been an objection at Talk:INS Khanderi (2017). You'll have to get a consensus first. Sorry. BilCat (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@I ame shears: Just to be clear, as a WP:Page Mover, I can't perform disputed moves without a consensus. It's part of the rules I have to follow. BilCat (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For consistently thanking me. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
You're most welcome. It's an easy way to say good job/nice edit/etc. BilCat (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I certainly agree. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes I even use it to mean "my bad - you were right"! BilCat (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Probably a good idea. Heh. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 06:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

F/A-XX program

Just so you know, Swatjester has been saying some less than flattering things about you at Talk:F/A-XX program#Disambiguation page links. - ZLEA T\C 03:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Just taking the high road, and giving them some WP:ROPE. I was quite surprised to find out they were an admin, given their behavior over removing a DAB link in an article! We'll see how it goes soon enough. BilCat (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
We might be dealing with a compromised account, given the limited edits they've made in the last 5 years. Curiouser and curiouser. BilCat (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I've sent an email to the Stewards, hopefully they will look into it and, if it is compromised, lock the account before any damage can be done. - ZLEA T\C 05:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Their mistaking Wolf for an admin is a rookie mistake, not something one expects of an admin. Just weird. BilCat (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I've contacted Martin Urbanec on Discord, and after checking he said that it is unlikely to be compromised. He then suggested that we contact ArbCom for a WP:LEVEL2. - ZLEA T\C 14:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom has been contacted. - ZLEA T\C 15:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks again. I do appreciate it very much. BilCat (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom has responded saying that they do not usually hear private requests for cases like this, and that an on-wiki process should be used instead. How do you want to proceed? - ZLEA T\C 19:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I really don't know. It's all in the history if he becomes a problem again. At least one admin had eyes on it, so we'll see what he does next. BilCat (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops

Thanks for that revert. If you look at the history that’s how I wanted it. My revert was simply my apparent inability to read diffs on my phone :) thanks again. Mark83 (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mark83: No worries. I've misread so many diffs it's pathetic! BilCat (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI

I had already filed a report at UAA about our new friend. So, hopefully one way another, it gets changed soon. Cheers - wolf 22:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't file it myself, as I felt it might be worked out directly with the user, otherwise Twinkle would have let me know a report had already been filed. As it is, the user doesn't seem to understand. there is an issue. BilCat (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Meh, UAA says to either file a report or go the user talk page route, but not both. I always go with the report. À chacun son goût... - wolf 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I usually filed in the past, but I certainly will from now on! User has been name-blocked. BilCat (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching them. I blocked the editor on the Douglas A-1 Skyraider page. Couple of hints to save you time. If there is just the one version with a copyvio that's the only one that needs deleting. The version where you remove it is OK. I'm not sure if it is done automatically but I can't delete the latest revision of the page. I have to have on to be visible. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for deleting them. I use a script to add the deletion request, and I'm still learning to use it. I'll be more careful the next time I use it. BilCat (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

It was fun typing that IMPACT variant, I then forgot about it but the notice reminded me, it's a good mood to end today's session. I also agree with you that IP masks are a bad idea for Wikipedia, especially that the legal arguments used in support appear to really be pseudo-legal ones with inference; afterall they also serve for copyright attribution. Then it'll disrupt standard practice like the useful IP tags... Maybe if they do it right an advantage could be more centralized talk pages for ranges where /64 is known to be the same device, etc. Anyway, goodnight, —PaleoNeonate – 06:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bludgeon discusison

From the discussion over at WT:Don't bludgeon the process, it's a dialogue, so I thought perhaps it would be more appropriate to reply here.
You make good sense. And the Samuel Johnson quote is a belter! - I think that spirit is being followed. E.g. for this page in debate, after it became likely the article would likely be kept, I've contributed quite a bit. (I was going to link to the edit stats, which shoe me as the second biggest contributor to this page, but they're massively skewed by my PROD and AfD. So it's not that big a contribution.)

From your User page it states that you're considering retirement. From the limited interactions I've experiences, it would seem that you're a great communicator. You leaving this project would be a loss. I see your statement, and I can understand the frustration with the IP masking. From what you wrote, the Portuguese model seems to be the way to go. Here's hoping some sense is exhibited by the Foundation, with concomitant staying on your behalf. (If that is the main issue - what do I know?). Anyway, all the best to you. Chumpih t 00:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. As to being a "great communicator", I have my moments, especially if I'm not too emotionally involved. If I am emotionally involved, not so much, or if I'm having a bad day overall, which can happen a lot. (Health related. I don't go into any more detail than that on an open forum, for hopefully obvious reasons.) As to retirement, yeah, IP masking is the main issue. I'm basically waiting until it's implemented to see what happens, but I felt it was important to make my views known now. BilCat (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
For sure, we all get good and bad moments. If the good ones are in the majority, we're doing very well.
Re. the IP masking, I feel this should probably be trialled on a smaller instance than WP:EN. And even then, there's likely to be an arms race, esp. with IPv6, as the opportunities are larger.
Best of luck with the health, and no matter what your choice, with whatever the future may bring. Chumpih t 10:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Kartveli and the A-10

I was reading the article and noticed that you keep reverting every single mention of the A-10 on his page, using the excuse of either IPs or 'unsourced resource'. The reverts on 13 January particularly come quite close to straight edit warring, all from different users. Since the latest reverts you have done include multiple printed sources, I would like to know just what exactly you consider to be a reliable source? Even if Kartveli was not entirely responsible for the design, it is quite clear that he had some level of involvement in the design. What would be a good enough source for this? Jspace727 (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

See WT:AIR#Alexander Kartveli and the A-10, where the consensus is that there's no support for any involvement by Kartveli on the A-10 project. Please raise any further questions on the subject there. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh

User:YappityYapp. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh brother! BilCat (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Some coal for you! (humour)

Here’s a whole wagon
Thank you for your 50+ reverts of the coal-only account— mad respect to you! Helen(💬📖) 00:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Gotta love WP:ROLLBACKS. BilCat (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Edge City

Maybe I missed it but how did you come to the conclusion that Edge City "seems to be confusing to a lot of readers?" I haven't seen many edits reversing that term. People have been reverting the location for years and it's almost always someone reverting the location back to the city Atlanta. Edge city is also how the location is described on the Cumberland, Georgia article. If someone is indeed confused by the term there's a link to the article explaining what it means. Given how nebulous that location is calling it an edge city makes sense to me. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That's my impression anyway. It's not legally a city, so to me the term introduces too much confusion. From my years of editing on Wikipedia, I know from experience that people tend to react in a knee-jerk manner to such terms, and won't follow the links to inform themselves. Given that the article isn't about Cumberland, it's better to avoid it altogether. (To be honest, I've never heard the term except on Wikipedia, and it seems to be a neologism, which should generally be avoided.) We should probably discuss this on the article's talk page if it needs to be discussed further. BilCat (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Generally I agree with you, but given the oddness of the Cumberland city/non-city/edge city/unincorporated area it seems like a useful piece of information to educate the reader about the area. I'm fine with whatever though, I was just curious about the confusion bit. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I admit it was hyperbolic exaggeration to some extent, but it was definitely a bone of contention to some reader(s). How many is certainly unknowable. Overall, it's not really relevant to an article on the stadium, which is why I changed it. I'm not going to change it in the Cumberland article at this point, but if it becomes contentious there, I'll try to raise it on its talk page first. Maybe it'll become incorporated or get annexed in the near future, and thus become a moot point. I'm sure some local politicians are drooling over the thought of how much tax revenue it would bring in! BilCat (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - February 2022

The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 2
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Columns

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI

I'm not sure how far you looked at Special:Contribs/70.161.8.90 and Special:PageHistory/User talk:70.161.8.90, but they're on a very static IP and have already been taken to ANI once (fell off the board without action). After my warning to them for transphobic NOTFORUM comments at Talk:Amy Schneider and their response thereto, and their response to you just now for the Washington Commanders thing, a second round at ANI might be due if they keep this up. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep an eye on them, and if they cross my path again, I'll let you know. BilCat (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

CAP

Is that better? -Toast (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Revered edit on SH-60 Seahawk page

Hey, you reversed an edit I made about the tail pylon folding; you said that’s not the only thing that can be folded, but the “tail pylon fold” feature is the correct characterization for that design.

Here’s a reference: https://ibb.co/M268WgR Devinpmorris (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

What is that from? A photo of text isn't submissible as a source. BilCat (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

raytheon and military-industrial complex

Military-industrial complex "not relevant" in conjunction with Raytheon? Sure?? See current ref. [14] in the article and have a look at: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=raytheon+military+industrial+complex . What do you think? -- Kku (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry bilcat it won't happen again 2605:8D80:4A0:D2C4:30C8:5B46:7C22:3F21 (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ronald Acuña Jr

Just saw that you rolled back the World Series champion thing from the Acuña Jr article. Is there an established rule of thumb on that? Does the player have to be on the playoff roster? In Acuña's case, he's on the 40 man roster and is inactive due to injury. He'll have a ring for sure as a member of the team. I'm just curious. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, I just know the Baseball project members usually revert it, like User:Yankees10 and User:Muboshgu. BilCat (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks like it was covered here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 34#WS champion in infobox. Player has to be on the postseason roster. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Nemov, yep, that's it, otherwise it's a slippery slope to including everyone who had a cup of coffee during the season. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey...

...just curious, is Talk:Her Majesty's Naval Service on your watchlist? I noticed you had a similar discussion a week or so ago... Cheers - wolf 06:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. Not sure if its BKFIP or not, but I think its regular question-asker. Best to DNFT, probably. BilCat (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm hoping my last post brought the thread to an end, but he might have a case of 'must-have-last-word-ism', so... we'll see. Cheers - wolf 09:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

British army strength

I thought the reference I used was relevant as it shows the averages for each century.

Is that not good enough for a reference? 82.19.42.13 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. But if disagree with me, you're welcome to propose adding back using the article's talk page. BilCat (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Barbados President

Hey! So you undid a small edit I made to the "President of Barbados" page for not citing my source on the claim of "Barbados is the only country to never have had a male president" (honestly, quite fairly)

So I went out looking for a source for it, because I know for a fact I read it somewhere. Aaaand I couldn't find a single article mentioning it - at all.

But I knew for a fact that it was true. So, instead of doing the rational thing and leaving this alone, I looked at every country with a Head of State featured in List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government (including going through List of leaders of Communist Tuva) and checked if that country ever had a male head of state.

And, in my findings, I found that my claim that Barbados is in fact "the only country to never have had a man serve as a non-monarch head of state" (newer, better phrasing) is true. Every other country has had at least one man (kinda underselling how many men there were...)

Does this count as enough to include it back in? Or would I need an actual, written source? Because just tonight I've read entire Wikipedia articles written with less sources, haha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaseStone (talk • contribs) 11:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChaseStone: No, it doesn't count, as that is Original Research, in addition to Wikipedia not being a reliable source for itself. You'll still need to cite a reliable published source. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Coaching trees

I don't remember any particular resolution regarding coaching trees. I find them fairly useful myself, but only if they can be reliably sourced, not just "Coach X worked under Coach Y in [year Z]". Sorry I didn't get the joke. – PeeJay 20:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

OK thanks. It's OK, it wasn't funny. BilCat (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm always mixing up my Stans. Zaereth (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Images

HI BilCat, I'm contributing some of my photos and trying to add them where they are fit in place. IMHO it's not spamming - these are solid photos - some are unique - and, for example, in AH-64D there's no photo in the section, although this is the major version in service (and Israeli Air Force has one of the largest AH-64D fleets). So, please let me understand the reason for this latest undo. thanks Nehemia G (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - March–April 2022

The WikiEagle
The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter
Volume I — Issue 3–4
Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle
Columns

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

'Set in' Category vandal

They're adding state categories when the city cats are already listed (or are for fictional shows such as Supergirl where it really isn't needed or vague-waved in-show), and in such a semi-automated pattern that a WP:NUKE is needed; I feel doing rollbacks would just result in them undoing just as fast. Nate • (chatter) 04:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Designated hitter

The editor reverting you has only gone there because he contributed stalked me over. He's obviously a sock of someone, though I don't know who. You were right to remove that SYNTH from the article, which I would again as well, but I don't want to give him any potential BOOMERANG material for the ANEW report I filed on him. oknazevad (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I don't recognize them either, but hopefully someone will. BilCat (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a good idea to physically threaten an editor! Blocked for a week, and hopefully more will be coming. BilCat (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to figure out who this jerk is. I've run into his socks on several occasions. BilCat (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Are sockmasters fundamentally incapable of understanding irony? "THERE, NOW stop whining and find yourself a new offwiki hobby as you're no use to this project". Hilarious. BilCat (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Invention spam?

Hi BilCat, I notice that you have reverted some edits that attributed the topic to a category of a given nation's inventions, calling it "invention spam". I'm unaware of categorization as a possible manifestation of spam. Is there some consensus about that, somewhere? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

things can be invented, deal with it
these categories exist for a reason
this 'reason' is just have no any basis 109.252.170.10 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@109.252.170.10: I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:CATEGORY.
@HopsonRoad: They described it as "spamming" (not spam, in the wp sense of the word). M.Bitton (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
so why these edits should be reverted, if they hold water ? 109.252.170.10 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
M.Bitton, The edit comment says "invention-spam". I've never seen such a category of concern. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@HopsonRoad: As far as I can tell, that's the only revert that says that, all the others say "Reverted invention category spamming". M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
M.Bitton, is that explained somewhere or is there a consensus on the topic? HopsonRoad (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@HopsonRoad: I have no idea what topic you're referring to. Adding similar unsourced/misleading info to various articles is obviously not acceptable. M.Bitton (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

HopsonRoad, I'm using "spamming" in the sense of adding unnecessary content across many articles, which is a common enough usage on Wikipedia. The issue of adding "X country inventions" categories has happened on a number of occasions in the past several years, and they've always been removed. Often, the nationalities are incorrect, and in most cases, the items aren't really "inventions" as such either. I don't know if the IP is one of the users who've done this in the past or not, but I do note they've now been blocked for proxy violations, for what that's worth. BilCat (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: BilCat (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, BilCat. I understand what's going on, if the reversions are part of cleaning up after an editor goes on a "tear" through Wikipedia changing an aspect of multiple articles without discussion or consensus. How I got here is that I noted that when the Category:Canadian inventions was added to Small-waterplane-area twin hull, the inventor, Frederick G. Creed is indeed a Canadian, so it didn't seem inappropriate to me. So, if I were to restore that category to the article on that basis, would I not be editing appropriately? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@HopsonRoad: While Frederick G. Creed was Canadian, his father was a Scotsman and he spent most of his life in Britain. That hardly qualifies his invention as a "Canadian invention" (that's what I meant by misleading in my previous comment). M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sentence to reference ratio

Do you really think that a single sentence, which already has an inline citation, requires a refimprove tag? Is it a problem for a one-sentence substub to only be sourced to a one source? There is no policy or guideline that says a single sentence requires multiple sources. Template:One source says "A single source is not automatically a problem. Good judgment and common sense should be used." What makes you think that this particular sentence requires multiple sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: That's actually the least of that "article"'s problems. It actually requires multiple sentences! The "source" is quite shoddy, basically being a list, and probably isn't a reliable source. At the least, it needs more and better sources, and more content, and at the most it should be AFDed and deleted. And you really think the best solution is to remove the only tag in the article? Those tags place the article in categories that other editors patrol, and so are useful, even if you don't think so.
Obviously we have a disagreement about how best to handle such matters. But hounding me about it isn't the best solution. I'm not going to stop adding such categories, or reverting their removal. If you have a problem with that, take it up at a relevant noticeboard. But beware the boomerang, as you really shouldn't be removing those tags.
Please do NOT post on my talk page about this again, aside from a notice of a discussion somewhere about it. BilCat (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it's not clear to me what you actually want. You make factual assertions that I find doubtful (e.g., that "editors patrol these categories" – if so, where have those alleged category-patrolling editors been for the last 8 years?), but you say don't want to talk about it, except that you are willing to talk about it at an unspecified relevant noticeboard. With your warning about WP:BOOMERANG, I assume that you mean ANI, but I don't think that would be productive, and I'm pretty sure that the first response there would be "WP:OVERTAG says to 'Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation'. Where's that discussion?" I don't see a functional path forward if you're unwilling to discuss whether a one-sentence substub needs a stub tag plus a refimprove tag plus a one-source tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
One, those tags are legitimate and should not be removed.
Two, I will keep adding the tags in such situations, and reverting their removal.
Three, in extreme cases, I may AFD the articles.
Four, if you still have an issue with me doing those things, find a appreciate venue to report me. But I think you'll find in the end that you'll be told to stop removing the tags.
Five, Stop posting here about the issue. Further comments will be removed and ignored. (Notices of discussion on an appropriate noticebord excepted.)
I hope that is clear enough now. BilCat (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • In addition, an article's talk page should be the first place to go for checking on and discussing issues with that article. The next place would be a relevant Wiki project talk page, such as WT:MILHIST for military related articles or WT:Air for aircraft articles. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    The problem is that most of these articles are substandard to begin with. Removing tags doesn't make them any better, and I'm not going to pretend it does. In many cases, these articles should be deleted or merged to a relevant article somewhere. But going around deleting maintenance tags doesn't help any. Their efforts would be better spent trying to actually evaluate the articles and see if they can be improved, and if not, nominating them for deletion. If the user can't do that, they should just leave these articles alone. BilCat (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What the hell is this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Handley_Page_Halifax&oldid=prev&diff=1084709120

Explain! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I was reverting an LTA user, whose edits you restored. Sorry if it looked like I was calling you an LTA. It could have been worded better. BilCat (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Collaborating on the Urban Air Mobility Article

Hi BilCat I noticed you're a member of WP:Aviation and wanted to see if you're interested to collaborate. I recently created a sandbox for proposed edits to the Urban air mobility existing article. Would you be open to review this content? Thanks in advance.--Chefmikesf (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm review-deficient (just ask my English teachers who wanted me to write book reviews for their classes!), but I'll try to look at it and see what I think. At first glance it looks thorough, but I haven't read through it yet. BilCat (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to talk about it

But if you'd like to, I brought some tea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I've disengaged. There's nothing more to discuss. They'll either grow up quickly

or get blocked. CIR. BilCat (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Good call I think. Fair enough. Agreed. And yet there appears to be a shortage these days. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Sorry if that sounded too dismissive. BilCat (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Hey even if you wanted to be dismissive, that'd be fair too. See you around! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sourcewashing

It's a common IP/kid show vandal tactic where they try to claim something is happening and throw in a source that mentions the topic, but as in what I reverted...it's not true, like how they said 'Sesame Street is moving to Cartoon Network' but all they said in the actual Kidscreen article was just a Nutcracker special and didn't mention CN once. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Stating fact is neutral

Please use the talk page of the article. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I can not get more generic or factual than describing a firearm as an instrument designed to kill humans. This is the manufacturers intention, why it is manufactured, why it is purchased. A page devoted to an instrument should clarify its designed use and function. The omission of this detail is extremely biased. Here is the wiki page short intro for a HAMMER.

A hammer is a tool, most often a hand tool, consisting of a weighted "head" fixed to a long handle that is swung to deliver an impact to a small area of an object. This can be, for example, to drive nails into wood, to shape metal (as with a forge), or to crush rock.[1][2] Hammers are used for a wide range of driving, shaping, breaking and non-destructive striking applications. Traditional disciplines include carpentry, blacksmithing, warfare, and percussive musicianship (as with a gong).


You will see the tool intro immediately defines the use of the tool. Drive nails into wood. crush rock. If I wrote that hammers are designed to kill humans, that would be incorrect. Hammers may be used to kill humans but that is not their designed purpose.

Guns, specifically combat firearms, not hunting rifles, have only one purpose and design. To kill humans. That is their designed purpose. They are not designed to shoot beer cans. Nor shoot paper. Nor deer. An Ar-15 style rifle is designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. That is the design purpose, it is advertised as a killing instrument. Omitting the designed purpose of a tool or instrument is extremely biased and not the neutral point of view you think it is. This is bias by omission. It renders the page suspiciously incomplete and my edit is not biased and is generic information that will help people understand what this firearm was designed for. It is not common knowledge that firearms are designed for killing humans. A wiki page should be written for the least informed, not the expert enthusiast.

I will return the essential detail of the firearm's intended use. Oggybleacher (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Oggybleacher: This clumsy apparent activism would need a citation to this effect in technical books about firearms and the history of the design of this one in particular, and to be phrased in an encyclopedic manner consistent with all other articles on weapons (originally) intended for military use. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I see the edit page is locked. I want to reach consensus on a minor edit but am not familiar with this kind of arbitration so bare with me.
This is the Wiki page tree of how I went from AR-15 to lethal instrument.
AR-15 >>>>>Semi-Automatic Rifle>>>>>>>>>>Self-Loading Rifle>>>>>Rifle>>>>>>>>>Firearm>>>>>>>>>Gun>>>>>>>Ranged--weapon>>>>>>>> Weapon>>>>>>>> ===inflict physical damage or harm.
So, that's 9 degrees of separation from physical harm....on a page for a weapon. 9 degrees of removal from its designed use scenario. I think this is not by accident, nor by oversight, nor because a weapon is ASSUMED to inflict physical damage. I think the wikipage has been sanitized by pro gun activists. It is sanitized because it looks better if the weapon is never called a weapon and is far removed from a weapon's utility. The page is currently being sanitized by pro-gun activists as is obvious by all the edits that have been removed. The page is not an unbiased description of this weapon. An unbiased description of this weapon would specifically say that it is a weapon. The page does not even say it is a weapon, let alone a lethal weapon. This goes suspiciously beyond an effort to be generic and unbiased. This is a biased and sanitized and intentionally incomplete description that requires 9 more levels of research to discover it is a lethal weapon. That's unacceptable by any scientific or research standard. The page for a Gun has no mention of its lethal potential? I read the Wiki page for GUN and have absolutely no idea what it is used for?
Every other tool page has a description of how the tool is used, what it was designed to do. The AR-15 has no designed purpose?? A tool with no designed purpose makes no sense. After 9 layers of research I discover it's a weapon. Weapons are designed to inflict physical damage or harm. But this important use is separated by 9 degrees from the page.
My goal is to remove all degrees of separation. This weapon is designed to inflict physical damage or harm. There should be zero degrees of separation from that design. That important detail should be on this page.
My edit in its entirety would read:
"The AR-15 is a potentially lethal weapon designed to inflict physical damage or harm"
I will reference the WIKI description for "Weapon" as my citation or any other description of weapons. Oggybleacher (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
You need to ask on the the talk page of the article, and get others to agree with your changes there. However, you'll probably be wasting your time. Please don't post on my talk page about this again. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Precious
Three years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Su-75

Thanks for pointing out that heading was not new. I thought that was a recent addition during the vandalism yesterday and it seemed like a magnet. I should have used more care; I apologize. VQuakr (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I could have handled the situation better myself. Anyway, thanks for being. vigilant and helping to protect the article from stupid memes! BilCat (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
@VQuakr: Looks like there's a backlog on RPP. We may need to ask one of the admins whiw.recently protected the article for help. BilCat (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Undid revision 1091401212 by Szagory (talk) unsourced, overlinking for Ramjet -> Soviet Union

(Would have preferred just to send you an email directly instead of posting on your talk page publicly, but I don't know if Wikipedia allows that)

Hi BilCat,

Not sure if undoing my changes in "Soviet Union" section of article on Ramjet was really called for - 9M730 Burevestnik is indeed the cruise missile mentioned in that section (the information in Burevestnik article tallies with what is mentioned in the section; and of the six strategic weapons announced by Putin on 1 Mar 2018 only "Burevestnik" is nuclear-powered cruise missile). With Wiki link to "Burevestnik" added, information in "Ramjet" article would be only improved, IMHO. And the Wiki links I added (for Lavochkin, for example) would be also useful to the reader, at the very least they wouldn't hurt... :-(

Serge Z. (talk), 03:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A brownie for you! (I just would like to say thanks)

Thank you for all of your contributions to WikiProject Aviation, and maintaining order and anti-vandalism on the pages. I really appreciate it! Henry Ingraham (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The Coast Guard Star

The Coast Guard Star
I hereby award you the Coast Guard Star for your extensive and continuing efforts to fight vandalism and the posting of misinformation to Wikipedia articles relating to the United States Coast Guard. For your efforts, I hereby award you the Coast Guard Star. Thank you and Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Viewing

Hey Bill hope all is well - Am wondering if you can tell me how your phone displays these 2 duplicate articles 1 & 2 - Do you see any difference / issues, other than the images coming before the table on (1) as opposed to the images coming behind the table on (2) - Thanks - FOX 52 talk! 20:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't use a phone to edit, sorry. BilCat (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok thanks so much. - FOX 52 talk! 20:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@FOX 52: The layout on the user sandbox page probably will not work that well on smaller screens with the images next to the main table. One or two of the columns in the table would need to removed for an OK fit on smaller screen, imo. This is based solely on viewing the pages on a PC. Regards -Fnlayson (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Without a phone you can get some idea on mobile: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FOX_52/sandbox and then narrow your browser down to phone screen width... - Ahunt (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Ahunt: Ah I see thanks for you help on that. - FOX 52 talk! 21:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Good idea User:Ahunt, thx! -Fnlayson (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

IJN Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Could you please explain your editing comment in IJN? Thanks. --91.5.101.3 (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It should have read, "Take the gun, leave the canoli". BilCat (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I figured that, it's still a remarkably unclear editing comment. Please explain. --91.5.101.3 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
It's a line from The Godfather. I probably should have said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." The point is to remove the space, not the note. BilCat (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Still not clear, on a different level. Just to recap, you are fine with removing the space, but you want to keep the comment that, in its entirety, reads "space"? And to reach that goal, you put the comments (including the MOS-contradicting space) back in? How does that makes sense? --91.5.101.3 (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I did not put "MOS-contradicting space" back in. BilCat (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
In case that wasn't clear enough for you, I did "Check if [the] invisible comment does not change the formatting for example by introducing unwanted white space", and it does not. BilCat (talk) 10:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Correct, I missed the fact that you did not revert my change (as described in your edit comment), but modified it. Sorry for that.
So all that's left is the question why you would add this strange comment in the first place. I can see the reasoning behind the formatting comment, what's the point in your non-formatting one? --91.5.101.3 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Apparently to keep editors from deleting the line space which is an occasional problem in some articles. Anyway, this has gone one long enough. BilCat (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

June 2022

You appear to be reverting material on the Columbia class submarine article for some reason. The edit has a reliable source attached and appears to meet Wikipedia standards for edits and additions to Wikipedia articles. Could you add it back into the article since it has a reliable source. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The content added was non-neutral and non-encyclopedic. It's basically Navy propaganda, even though, personally, I agree with it 100%. Raise the issue on the article's talk page if you want broader input on re-adding it. BilCat (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Talk page is fine, though you've been at Wikipedia long enough that you know that reliable sources edits normally should not be removed unless there is a separate reliable source which is intervening or in opposition. Do have a reliable source that intervenes on this edit? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
That's in incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:NOTNEWS concerns sourced content that isn't permitted, and is somewhat applicable to your additions. WP:NOT is also applicable. BilCat (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
BilCat's edit was correct, and WP:ONUS also applies. But this entire thread should be on the article talk page. (imo) - wolf 18:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Revision-deletion

Just a courtesy post. I have asked that the edit summary (which I have no power to amend) that was uncivil about my talk page be rev-deleted. No part of it is any longer valid. Thanks. --Sportspop (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sportspop: Thank for trying. I have a couple of uncivil summaries out there that I tried to have deleted too, but they weren't eligible either. I guess the lesson is to either always be civil in edit summaries, or else be so uncivil they have to delete it. Unfortunately, the latter option usually comes with an indef block! :) BilCat (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah we're all clear that the message is 100% redundant. Thanks again and glad we formed new rapport. All the best! --Sportspop (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Unpublished revision

Ok, how do I add actual source information like currently taken photos of said item for which I am the source. There are not any online publications or secondary sources for which I can cite for this information because we use the link trainer internally and it is still in good condition and in use up until recently. So how do I add the information for which I can personally prove is true with photographs, records and evidence unless I create a completely unverified website containing the information independent of Wikipedia and cite that? Can I add photos and evidence as a cited source somehow? 158.140.195.42 (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Reversion on flag of Australia

Please discuss article issues on the relevant talk page. BilCat (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit, stating that "the flags can barely be seen or distinguished". Though the caption I wrote may suggest otherwise (and I will therefore amend it in any subsequent reinstatement), the focus of the image is on the flag in the foreground i.e. the first Union Jack. This monument represents the first flag used in Australia, in the area in which it was first raised and therefore I believe has significance pertaining to the article. Regarding your statement that it can barely be seen, please note this is a monument largely flanked by buildings on every side which prevents significant wind. Nonetheless, I believe the identifying features of it are visible and it would not be mistaken for a different flag. I wish to reinstate the edit but thought I should at least give you notice and an opportunity to respond before I do so. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I will attempt to provide a clearer image of the monument in future. Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
From my notices above: "For matters related to article content, "use the article's talk page". Thanks. BilCat (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soviet fighter IP

Sdrqaz pointed out that our little friend may be BKFIP. The behavior seems to be consistent, so we might consider adding the IPs to the "massively incomplete" list of suspected IPs. What do you think? - ZLEA T\C 02:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know much about BKFIP, but from my brief encounters with their socks, it doesn't seem like them. All of this farm's IPs locate to Australia, and they are usually hostile to Americans, something I don't remember from my interactions with BKFIP. We may be dealing with more than one person too, as some of the IPs say nothing, and some are very hostile. They use a lot of IPs, so blocking isn't a great option, unfortunately. BilCat (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Clarendon pictures

Thanks for your message about the images added to the Clarendon article. I've uploaded another pic, just for good measure, which isn't amazing quality but shows more of the stream flowing from the spring, which is 200m to the right. I have a few others of Welcome Beach but none would add to the article much or have people in them, though it was 20 years ago. Eating fresh snapper stew mixed with water biscuits on the beach as the sun sets is Clarendon Parish at its best.Richard Nowell (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem, mon. I'd rather have jerk chicken, or currie chicken with rice and peas and boiled green bananas, in May Pen, but it's so much hotter there. I haven't eaten anywhere on the Clarendon coast, but did have dinner one eveling in Little Ochie. I think it was crab, but not too memorable. I'm not even sure where Welcome Beach is. We used to go to Jackson Beach when I was a child. BilCat (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Nowell: And it took me a bit to realize what "water biscuits" were! I think Jamaicans use both terms, "biscuit" and "cracker". BilCat (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Carrs' water biscuits to be precise. They swell up when absorbing stew etc. Welcome Beach is where the Salt River meets the sea, but it is not a tourist beach - no-one cleans it. Inland is hotter though and I was in Maypen a few times, staying nearby.Richard Nowell (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
The North Coast is generally a little cooler than the south of the island, especially May Pen, Spanish Town, and Kingston. And Mandeville is appreciably cooler than that. The last time I visited Jamaica was 20 years ago, and I couldn't tolerate the heat in May Pen. (And I grew up there!) Fortunately the people I was staying with lived in Mandeville. BilCat (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete reversion?

It looks to me like you meant to remove more than the comma here, but I'm not qualified to judge and thought I'd better leave it to you. Regulov (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. BilCat (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear BilCat/archive24,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

More socks

We've a growing problem. Two new socks: Focus on content and Tschrwd. Perhaps, targeted pages will need to be semi-protected. GoodDay (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

And another one: Tschrwd. -- GoodDay (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. BilCat (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Stinger

I noticed you reverted my reversion of an ip's addition to FIM-92 Stinger, which changed "The FIM-92 Stinger is a man-portable air-defense system" to "The FIM-92 Stinger is an American man-portable air-defense system". Assigning a nationality to this missile in the opening line is problematic. It's used by a variety of nations, and is manufactured under license by others. The origins are noted in the lead with "Developed in the United States, it entered service in 1981", which has been the stable version for some time now, as you know. I think "The FIM-92 Stinger is a US-developed man-portable air-defense system" is workable if you really needed to get the developer's nationality in in the opening line for some reason. But to say the Stinger is an American weapon is misleading. Can you do me the courtesy of explaining your revert? Spokoyni (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It is standard in many weapons articles to identify the nation of origin in the first line, which is why the previous user added it. And no, it's not misleading. BilCat (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Boeing 720 - 9 ft shorter or 8ft 4in shorter, which is it?

Bilcat, after thoroughly reading the article, I changed the first two references to fuselage length (9 ft shorter) to agree with the "8 ft 4 inches shorter" (8.33 ft in decimal format) referenced under "Development" (1st paragraph, last line). It doesn't matter to me but I thought the article should be consistent, hence my edits. (note, the general consensus referencing other internet sources is the original B707 as delivered to Pan Am had a fuselage length of 145' 1", which would have made the original B720 4'11" shorter) Can you please clarify, which is it? JimRester (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be consistent, but it should be consistent with the cited sources. I haven't checked my printed sources yet, but I will as I have time. BilCat (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Asking for Advice

Hey BilCat, it's GansMans.

This might not be the right thing and you probably aren't the right person to ask. And I understand completely if you can't/aren't willing to help. But I could use to advice.

I'm having a discussion over on Talk:USS Torsk. I noticed the hull number wasn't with the sub's name, it was split with a link to the Hull Numbers page. I thought it should be more uniform with the rest of Wikipedia on similar pages and changed it so it matched. It was reverted by an experienced editor/administrator and asked to go to the talk page.

Once there, I proposed that it should be changed so the hull number is with the ships name as usual. But he disagreed and said consistency was irrelevant and that it was fine as is. I proposed a compromise, asked if we should get a third opinion and even said I would back off if he gave a good reason as to why the page was better left as is. But I was only met with a bit of hostility and accused of not discussing in good faith.

I guess I'm only here asking if you'd like to be the third opinion. You're kind of the only other editor in this realm of topic I know or have had previous discussions with. If not, that's fine, I've already started the process and listed a request for one. I just thought I'd ask to try and speed this discussion up a bit.

Thanks for reading. Like I said it doesn't matter what you decide. Just thought I'd reach out for help. GansMans (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@GansMans: Honestly, just let him do what he wants there. He's an admin, and isn't afraid to block users he perceives to be disruptive. He's one of the main users who hates USN hull numbers, and European-style pennant numbers to a slightly lesser extent. Some of us have opposed this guideline from even before it was snuck in to the SHIPMOS in the dead of night, nearly 15 years ago. We're working slowly to get it changed, but it hasn't been easy. As you've seen, he gets very hostile when anyone opposes his will on this matter. Otherwise, he's a good editor and administrator, so this little bit of bad behavior has been tolerated so far. In the long run, it's not a big issue. I'm sure this wasn't what you wanted to hear, but it is best to just drop the issue for now. It's not worth getting blocked over. BilCat (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


@BilCat: Thanks for the help. It's good to know theres a reason why this discussion has been troublesome. I'm just going to leave it as you're right that it's not worth getting in trouble for. Hopefully sometime in the future things like this will be fixed. Unfortunate but that's the way it is sometimes. Thanks again.

GansMans (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

airline infoboxes

Did you notice that the IP that changed the Continental Airlines infobox has done the same thing to others. I don't have time to go through all their edits if you want to help. MB 18:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed. That series of IPs does some weird things, but I don't think the IPs are blockable. I'm not sure if it's more than one person or what. Most of their edits are adding and removing the same content to infoboxes. I don't know what can be done to stop them short of self-protecting every airline article, which is probably infeasible. (This is a major reason why I oppose all IP editing. I do wish the WMF would spend some time trying to deal with these users on a daily basis. I think we'd find a lot of things being changed if they knew from experience what we have to deal with. But oh well.) BilCat (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
@MB: To answer your main question, I don't have much time today either. The farm will probably start reverting those edits in a day or two if the pattern holds true. I try to do what I can, but in my view, problematic IPs are a systemic problem, and if the WMF can't be bothered to make it easier for us to stop them, then I'm not going try beyond a certain point. It's technically not vandalism, so in the end it really isn't all that important. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, simple tho it may be, and that comes first! BilCat (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories

Please can you demonstrate how the use of "strove" is incorrect British English? I can quote from the Oxford English Dictionary that strove is the correct and recommended usage. The form strived does not take precedence. In fact weakened forms of strong verbs are a feature of US English, not British English. 151.254.180.11 (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I checked several dictionaries, and I thought I was correct. I'll check again. BilCat (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
My apologies. I did get mixed up, so I reverted myself. BilCat (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Your view would be appreciated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Overseas_Territories --Dreddmoto (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ship's cat

I said petting because the in the photograph itself it definitely looks like Churchill is petting a cat. Maybe it's just me but that doesn't look anything like someone restraining a cat. Clovermoss (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually I think I get what you were getting at in regards to the boarding comment. Sorry. I guess they do know something we don't? Still looks like petting to me, but I guess I'm wrong. It's been a long day, my reading comprehension is obviously flawed right now. Clovermoss (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
It indeed looks like petting. But perhaps he was just in the process of bending down to restrain the cat when the photo was snapped. BilCat (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Help request

Hello BilCat, I'm a new editor here and the last edit by the anonymous IP address is currently disrupting multiple currency related articles. If there's a chance you could help me get in touch with an admin to get that person to stop adding "information" that would be great. Thanks in advance and have a nice day ChaaZ001 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

What edit are you referring to? BilCat (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about the edits from 173.79.160.4 on multiple pages such as the British pound sterling and the jamaican dollar. ChaaZ001 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ok. The best way to get in contact with an admin is to leave a post at WP:ANI, per the instructions there. BilCat (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking

I seek no edit war in Languages of the United States, but my link to the country is a standard "specificity" link, not a link to common words. In checking every "Languages of...," "Demography of...", and "Culture of..." article in WP, I see that 100% of them blue-link to the country in question—on the first mention in article, which is nearly always the first sentence. The only exception I can find in WP to this practice is your reversion. As I understand it, the country name is not a common term that overlinks to words like "language" or "speakers" or "fluency," but emphasizes the very country being discussed, which readers might wish to access directly. In your 2nd revert, you state there are "no guidelines", but universal practice (except for a lone WP editor, you) is not the best yardstick. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, read WP:OLINK. If you have a quibble with my application of the guideline, take to the guideline page, and make your case there. BilCat (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I read it and believe you are overreading it (confusing common-noun links with primary links). All country-related articles in WP are linked to their country in the first sentence. Will take to the guideline page. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

yup

oz strylia is a very strange place at the best of times, and nope we cannot be held responsible for the weirder ideas/terminology, we are all bruces' here (viz monty python) so gday and thanks, bruce. JarrahTree 04:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@JarrahTree Is this in response to my post on Nick-D's talk page? That last IP was from Nepal! Or Ponyo's page? That IP user is from all over Australia! Assuming it's just one user. I don't hold the actions of one user against a country. That's prejudice and stupidity, which this user/users is/are guilty of themself/-ves. The thing about most Americans, even if we've spent a lot of time outside the US, we aren't insulted by words or phrases we don't understand. Even when we know what they mean, they just aren't offensive to us. Just quaint and silly! What does strike me as hilarious is this IP user like to make like Americans speak some weird brand of English, but that Australian English is normal! LOL! But there are people like that in the US, Canada, Britain, and every country in the world. BilCat (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
gday bruce, yup it was about bruce nick d, and yes all countries have them... JarrahTree 12:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
the seriously local qualifier is the terminology:
I've been everywhere man...
Wollongong, Wollongong, Wollongong....
The real local context cruncher...
and Dapto
But hell, its a bit like dealing with the Vina Del Mar,

Valparaiso distinction in Chile - old Valparaiso of the pre 1906 earthquake era, and the ceros that are part of vina del mar, or valparaiso...

But it can get very particular... JarrahTree 12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

JSoc

Re this, "JSoc" is the term used for Jewish societies in UK universities.[1] Might be obscure in the US, but in the UK that's what you'd be looking for if you searched for JSoc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I removed it because there was no mention whatsoever of the term on the linked article. BilCat (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh I see that's correct. I might look at this properly and add it in to that article (I can't remember how I got to there!) and if so re-add the see also. Thanks for quick response. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Single float advantage

OK, fair is fair on RS, but please see Talk:Floatplane#Single float advantage 🙂. I think that is a better outcome. Thanks! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ronald Acuna Jr

You removed my edit. Just because he was not on the WS Roster, does not make him a World Series Champion. He has a ring. You need to undo that edit, that's just flat out wrong. Bluechip18 (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bluechip18: It's explained on the article's talk page. You can make your case there. BilCat (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Sixteenth Anniversary on Wikipedia!

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear BilCat/archive24,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Speed of sound

Sorry, I thought the speed of sound was constant at 340 meters per second thank you so much BilCat 197.37.243.55 (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Megalopolis

Hi Bit Cat I found this information on Jon Bernthal's podcast in which Shia LaBeouf confirmed himself in the Podcast. Though I Don't know if it will count as a link Movieking134 (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Movieking134 If it's been officially announced, someone should be able to find a direct source fairly soon. If it's just his claim, I'm not certain it can be used. BilCat (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Vancouver's status as a suburb or otherwise

Vancouver, Washington has a history that doesn't parallel the formation of suburbs in America. It was settled before Portland, Oregon, and has a sustainable economy as a part of Southwest Washington, being home to several major regional/national businesses with its own port and industrial district. Vancouver natives believe it is a satellite city of Portland, though it may be smaller than other examples. It fits the criteria of this definition, economically, culturally, and historically. 97.120.157.132 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that calls it a satellite city. BilCat (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

David Goldfield's Encyclopedia of American Urban History touches on Vancouver's status as a satellite city. Also, no disrespect, but the op-ed you mentioned in Vancouver's talk page is solely an opinion piece, an extremely biased and disrespectful one at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.157.132 (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

All you need is a reliable source, and that looks reliable to me. Nownyou just need to cite it. Is it a print edition, or on the internet somewhere. (Btw, my parents are from Vancouver and nearby town, so I have no malice towards it. I been there several times.) BilCat (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to cite it in an article, as I'm not a big wikipedia guy, I just like human geography and local culture. (I'm from Vancouver as well) here is a link to the google book if it does you any good https://books.google.com/books?id=yWA5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PT815#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.157.132 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but you need source that clear states that Vancouver meets the definition of satellite city. I didn't see it there. BilCat (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Advancing Blade Concept

Information icon Hello, BilCat. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Advancing Blade Concept, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Rate v. Rank

Please see my talk page comment on a recent change made on 6 September about the article List of United States Coast Guard enlisted ranks. I would welcome your thoughts on the issue.Cuprum17 (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sukhoi Su-34

I'm a new editor and I'm struggling to understand why you've reverted my edit of a dubious claim made in the Operational history section under the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I've added my reasoning to the "talk page", please discuss. (This is relating to my first edit, sorry if I'm doing something wrong) 5.56.146.200 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hoggardhigh active

User:Hoggardhigh socks are active again: User:173.93.112.9, User:173.93.117.22. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Location of full cite mark up

Re [2] — I've found it useful to have the full mark up located at the first instance of the cite so that it is easier to find if it needs editing again. One simply goes to the "a" instance of the cite as indicated in the reflist. Bob K31416 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bob K31416 I understand. I only reverted as it was in the Lead, which in most cases shouldn't have citations. This makes it easier to remove them if it's decided they aren't needed at in the lead after all. I've no issue if you want to revert, or already have. BilCat (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
After reading your reply, either way seems reasonable. Since it has been as is in the article for years, and choosing one way over the other does not have a significant impact, I'll leave it that way. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a bit ago you and I were involved trying to sort out of an image of an A-10 was DOD for copyright purposes. Today, I was about to upload some images I received with credits to the Colorado National Guard but realized that I was not sure if they are governed by the same public permissions as DOD images. If the image is attributed to CO National Guard personnel in their official capacity, is that image public domain? If necessary, I can submit the specific publicly detailed credits associated with the images in question. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't know on that. User:Diannaa is pretty good on copyright policy, so you could start with her. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Pbritti. Typically photos/text produced by individual states is not in the public domain. If it's the Colorado Army National Guard, they have a DoD website - https://co.ng.mil/ - and hence are under the purview of the US Govt. But you will need to check each image carefully for copyright info. For example, the image here is credited as "stock photo" and is thus not in the public domain. — Diannaa (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Thanks! The image is included in a NORAD official publication and is attributed to a CONG soldier in their official capacity as a PR photographer (other images in the same document are attributed to Getty and AP so obviously those are not permitted for upload). I'm going to upload it Soon™ and will ping you on your page if I have any lingering questions! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
You're most welcome. I'm just happy to have had a conversation on my talk page this month that I didn't have to delete or close! BilCat (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Clinical mental health counseling

Interesting phenomena at Clinical mental health counseling. Look at the edit history. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 Newcomer tasks? I don't know anything about how it works, but I saw somewhere that removing the maintenance tags will stop it from being listed. Definitely something to look into. If you meant something else, I missed it. Try my email if you want to say more privately. BilCat (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out why so many new editors were on the article, then I figured it was all the tags. It must be at the top of the newcomers list. I'm wondering if it will become a super article, or if it's Wikipedia's version of Lord of the Flies. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

P-38 vs F-5

Talking about the invasion stripes article, the F-5 was a more specific, altered variant of the P-38 to become a recon plane, but overall the same design with more internal changes. It might be helpful to include both names, as P-38 is pretty well known for its shape and structure and people associate the F-5 with the modern jet. What do you think? BacySkims (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll see if I can rephrase it. BilCat (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin hatnote

Hello BilCat, according to WP:HATNOTERULES "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." IMO, the hatnote doesn't meet this. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary explained why it's plausible. BilCat (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Your edit summary pointed out the flaw in the reasoning of my edit summary. It still doesn't meet the reasonable possibility of a reader incorrectly arriving at the wrong article.
Taking some examples from the same transit system, I don't see Vienna station (VTA) (signed as "Vienna") listed in Vienna (disambiguation); Milpitas station (s/a "Milpitas") isn't in the hatnote in Milpitas; similarly for other transit agencies serving that city: Sunnyvale station (s/a "Sunnyvale") isn't in Sunnyvale (disambiguation). In all these examples, I'd like to think the stations were chosen to not be added as it's unlikely for a reader to arrive at the wrong article/need for disambiguation. Ptrnext (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
If a reader types in "Lockheed Martin", the name on the station's signs as shown in the photo you added, they would arrive at the wrong article. That's when a hatnote is needed. They probably need to be in those other cases as well, but none of those articles are on my watch list, so I'm not worrying about them. If you have more to say, please take up the issue on the article's talk page. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Raytheon

Hello, you changed the founding date back to back to 2020. The founding date citation is already on the page (citation 10), so it would be redundant to add it in the company blurb on the side. The article mentions the 1922 date, so I'm not sure why 2020 was reverted. I am new, so please let me know why my edit was invalid. Sargeanthost (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Raytheon Company was founded in 1922, but Raytheon Technologies was formed in 2020 by the merger of Raytheon Company and United Technologies. Thus, we list 2020. BilCat (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I see, I didn't catch that. Thank you Sargeanthost (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
No problem. BilCat (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Div Col Template

In reference to your edit on hush kit: The Div Col Template makes small text? I didn't think it did. There's a |small=yes parameter in the template, but as far as I can tell it's not enabled by default. –Noha307 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Roku

Why are you removing my security passages from the roku article? They come from good sources. 204.100.235.138 (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hiii!

Wikiwow1102 has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made her happy and she'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the belated welcome and for your edits. I like your sense of humor. Anyways gotta go, got some vandals to fight;) Wikiwow*_* (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Sikorsky S-61

I was thinking that the only way to improve a short description is to make it shorter! - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The only way to really improve a short description is to delete it completely! BilCat (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Well on some list articles there has been concerted campaign to add {{short description|none}} (for instance List of Cessna models and List of Douglas A-26 Invader operators). That pretty much sets a new standard for bytes that say nothing. - Ahunt (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please Contact Me Brother.

I want you to help me post a profile on here. 41.57.95.215 (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not able to help directly at this time. Please see Help:Your first article for more information on how to write an article. Cheers. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Why can't I have one (circa 1947) ?

EZ commute?

Number built: 2. Probably not a very quiet ride, though (heavy duty earmuffs required). El_C 16:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hehe. It probably was no louder than the average light plane, as it used a standard light aircraft engine. But it probably wasn't a very smooth ride! BilCat (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No doubt. In my dream, the flying car was my old Dodge Spirit, so probably even less aerodynamic than this 1947 car. These weren't pressurized, right? El_C 14:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Not pressurized at all. Most small planes aren't anyway. I had Chevrolet Chevette that I flew about 10 feet one time. Rough landing, and not an experience I'd recommend! BilCat (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Too late! I did something similar (?) on a country-road bridge with my Plymouth Reliant, the car I had before (which the Spirit was kind of a higher-end clone of). Totally wrecked my shocks. Luckily, we had a mechanic family friend at the time, who after giving me a hard time for being an idiot (deservedly), fixed it for dirt cheap. I was so lucky to have him in my corner, because he was the one who acquired both cars at auction for me, also for dirt cheap. And, you know, when you're a teenager, a car is a car. ;) El_C 22:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Yup. My dad was into salvaging wrecked cars, so almost all of mine were acquired that way. Some had very little damage, but most had to be completely rebuilt. (I won't go into any details, as this is an open forum. After wrecking the Chevette in that landing, I drove my mom's 70-something Maverick. I ended up wrecking that one too. I wish I still had it. It was a 4-door, but a decent car for a mid-70s one. My favorite car was a 1994 T-bird with a V-8. Man, tha car could fly (on the road!) I had to do some business trips in the early 2000s, and I loved driving it on the interstates. Could go around any truck, any time! BilCat (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Cool, I've driven one of those T-Birds a few times — they're fire. After the Spirit, I got a Pontiac Sunbird Turbo GT that I was really fond of. It was only a V4, but it was slick and very red and super-fun to drive (and the headlights did the thing!). But it was a turbo, so it ran hot and didn't last too long (I swear, I was putting oil in it, like, every few weeks). Didn't help that I drove it hard. Now I'm an adult and I have a 2020 Genesis, which is nice and all, but I still miss the used cars of my youth (and my youth). El_C 23:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Henschel Hs 123

I'm not going to change it again... but it's in the same text (reference number 5). In that book, on page 113 you can read: "About 265 units were produced, of which most were version Hs 123 A-1." All the best. Zumalabe (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

... for extensive support, it was most welcome and supportive! Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You're most welcome! BilCat (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem with the perspective you hold.

The Ar wiki is about the Ar gun series, not the term and history of the slang word ¨AR¨ and its meaning, refrain from editing and reverting terms that don't comply or follow the main point of the article.

Like really. AR is the company and the wiki page is about the company and gun series.

Its not talking about the guns in the category of assault rifle like the Ak-47 and STG-44 would be in.

Thank you. Gun Nut perk (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed many times at Talk:AR-15 style rifle, and you're welcome to discuss any issues you have there. But you're not welcome to continue to edit war, as you're doing in several articles today. You're risking getting blocked. BilCat (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Disputed primary topics

Do you think Talk:Taps (bugle call)#Requested move 30 October 2022 it a good example of a disputed primary topic? Although unlike Memphis it hadn't been raised before the fact that it was argued by usage a different topic was primary if anything and by long-term significance a different could also be primary if anything suggests disambiguation is the best option? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The last sentence is a bit hard to follow. BilCat (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I was pointing out that if there are arguments that suggest different topics are primary it is very likely disambiguation is the best compromise similar to the fact people claimed the other Memphis could be primary but we realized the best bet is to have no primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No

It was not a test. 😐 PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, it was unhelpful. BilCat (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Hot Stuff" aircraft

Why was my edit deemed not worthy? I am sorry if I messed up or made a big mistake but that plane's final flight manifest is an important added section and adds a lot to the article. Nimuda (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

R44

Considering this made not just local news but NY Times, Associate Press, CNN, and a few others I hadn't yet had time to link, this seems like it might be a case for an exception to the guidelines if the blurb is shortened - the nationwide news apparently thinks this is pretty noteworthy. Especially since two News station employees were involved - that IS out of the ordinary. And if the pilot did deliberately try to save the cars below, as several witnesses to the crash claim he did, that seems something worthy of remembrance as well. EEBuchanan (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Please make your case for inclusion on the articles talk page. We generally go by the guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH. Please note that Wikipedia isn't a news source or a memorial. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok Duly noted. Others (one an admin) have put it on the WCNC page so I updated it with the citations I had. I guess it goes there. It is something at least important in the history of the station, but if WP policy dictates it isn't in the history of the aircraft type that's all right. EEBuchanan (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure others are keeping an eye on the incident. It wouldn't take much more to push it over the notability threshold. BilCat (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Again duly noted. I actually live near where the crash happened and work just down the street from it, so I can keep a pretty close eye on things myself. FAA/NTSB investigations have always fascinated me.
EEBuchanan (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

After all that work on Visual Editor you might be thirsty...tell no one where you left the "body" Unbroken Chain (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, as long as it's non-alcoholic. BilCat (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Only the best O'douls for you ;) I can't drink much beer anymore either. Stupid diabetes ;) Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Baseball

In case you weren't aware, there's a discussion going on that you may be interested in. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin, thanks. I had already seen it, and am keeping track of it. I'll comment later on if warranted. BilCat (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

2037 bomber

I have to strenuously object to calling this a "program." I'm still surprised this is even an article. I almost entirely rewrote this after failing to get support for a merge at AfD. The so-called "2037 bomber" was actually a 1999 Air Force plan to put off development of strategic bombers until 2013. Given the tremendous backlash this paper received from the bomber community, it is unclear whether this policy ever really represented the Air Force's official stance. The USAF reversed course in a follow up report two years later. Furthermore, the 1999 Long Range Bombers white paper explicitly called for a "capability", not a "bomber" per se (e.g. some sort of standoff munition or otherwise some not-yet-conceived conceptual weapon). I'm not entirely satisfied with calling this "2037 bomber controversy" either, so I welcome any suggestions. Schierbecker (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather just go back to "2037 Bomber". BilCat (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

I literally 'laughed out loud' when I saw this. Cheers - wolf 23:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup. You can lead an user to a hidden note, but you can't make them read/follow it! BilCat (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent rollbacks

I noticed from the Department of Airports (Thailand) article that you recently reverted a whole bunch of edits by 2607:fea8:699b:b700:f912:9291:450c:da52, though most of them seemed unproblematic to me. Maybe you'd like to recheck the reversions? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I reverted all this users edits per WP:DENY, as they are an LTA. They have since been range-blocked. Feel free to restore any of their edits that you believe are unproblematic. BilCat (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello BilCat: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, Quviasukvik, the Winter or Summer solstice, Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}
CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new year and Bradley conundrum

I think you've already taken care of some people prematurely adding Ukraine to the list of Bradley operators on the M2 and Fighting Vehicle articles. I don't want to jump the gun and add anything to the bodies quite yet as the reports are fairly spotty, but I was hoping you could provide guidance on what we could say should we want to add anything. The best sources I've found are Bloomberg (who I believe broke the story) and The Hill (which leans on the Bloomberg reporting). Happy new year! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, BilCat!

Happy New Year!

BilCat,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Hi BilCat, Looking backwards, looking forwards, best wishes for the New Year. Happy wikifying! (Regardless of UTC, it is still January 1 where I'm posting!) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
hi there thank you bilcat Paytonisboss (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Why is using excerpt not a good idea? In this case, the two bits were already identical. Lfstevens (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Because the lead in one article and the summary of that article in another one should be independent. As the engine article grows, the lead will be expanded to three or four paragraphs, but the summary in the aircraft article shouldn't be more than one or two paragraphs, though it can and should be updated. The reason they are currently identical is that when I split the engine article off from the aircraft article, I used the summary as the lead. BilCat (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Good work

Nice eye catching [[3]], I missed it! James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 05:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem, Wikipedia is collaborative, so we all help each other out. Just like an admin will help out if that vandal keeps vandalizing! BilCat (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Good to know Wikipedia is still collaborative even after all my inactivity. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 05:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Daimler-Benz DB 605

There are more edits, by the same IP user, to the Daimler-Benz DB 605 article. You seemed to value my earlier actions there, perhaps you could take a hand now? I do not want to start a personal war with this - possibly well-meaning - editor. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look when I have a chance. BilCat (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Guyana - time zone

Have a look at timeanddate.com, https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zone/guyana/georgetown, check the 1900-1924 period and you will see the 3h45 min difference. Please? And if you see it is so, please restore my revision, as there is no distinct Time in Guyana article. GBC (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Help moving a page

Hey, I need some help moving Timmins/Victor M. Power Airport to Timmins Victor M. Power Airport. There's no slash present in the actual airport name, at least according to the airport's website, so I'm trying to remove it from the page title with a page move. I'm getting a "cannot move page" error when I try to perform the move. What exactly am I doing wrong? Michael60634 (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michael60634: Actually, you haven't done any wrong at all. Pages cannot be moved on top of an existing redirect if more than one edit has been made to the redirect page, which it has in the case, except by administrators or page movers. While I am a page mover, and could make the move, I'm not going to in this specific case. User:CambridgeBayWeather, whose is an admin, created the redirect page, and has done a lot of work on Canadian airport articles, so out of courtesy, I'm going to defer to him. If he doesn't pop by here or make the move in a few hours, feel free to ask him on his talk page. Thanks, and I hope that's not too inconvenient. BilCat (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Michael60634. No worries. I moved the page. Most of the smaller Canadian airports were created based on the name given in the Canada Flight Supplement because I didn't know the common names orr the one used by the airport authority. A lot of airports which have been given local names end up being at "community name/local name" as defined by Nav Canada. So Ronan Aerodrome which is run by a couple named Roan is at Tottenham/Ronan Aerodrome because that's where it's located. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
To add some further explanation, there are at least two reasons why the Canada Flight Supplement lists the community name first and any other names afterwards. The first is so that the list of airports serving any given community are grouped together in the same place in the book and second because in a pinch a pilot looking for a place to land near "Tottenham" will look under "T", not "R". - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. BilCat (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather Thanks so much for the page move! I wasn't aware that the name included a slash in the Canada Flight Supplement. I'll have to look into that more. Michael60634 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat/archive24&oldid=1137033647"